it doesn't matter who you vote for. that is why you campaign in support people who will make a difference. like a living wage. not just minimum wage, but a living wage of 7 pounds an hour. if we take our working-class voters for granted, we will not win again. that was one of the things that new labour did and that needs to change. >> john, there is a real set of issues. housing, employment, and welfare -- that critical group of issues where people feel they are not being given the right opportunities and there are responsibilities in return. we have to say clearly, yes, society will give you a chance, but you have responsibility to take it up. that is very important. secondly, you mentioned immigration. i do not wish to dockets. we have to be comfortable talking about immigration. if we're not, people will think we have something to hide.

we have nothing to hide. immigration needs to be fair to people who want to come here. this country has given me incredible opportunity. [unintelligible] a point.g to make it's got to be fair. >> that is a good question. i slurped a rigid as served in the 1990's when tony blair kamen, it is working class support. and they have nowhere else to go. so they were focusing on others. it was a lack of focus, why we did not introduce legislation on agency workers, and we move from being a party -- i know people market -- from being a top party

that spoke at people. >> you log get a question -- such as letter. -- you will all get a chance later. >> i heard his reaction to the one woman, and when i heard the tape, i realized i had spoken to her -- someone like her 3,000 tons. my daughter has waited two years for a council house, my son may not get a job next year, not to recognize and hear that, that was out of touch and we've got to get back in touch. i thought the largest membership in the country in my seat. the idea that if you bought abroad for our forces, and you

get the wrong color of skin, that is not acceptable. we have to make the case for fairness. >> i'll try to give you equal time on this subject. >> she is supporting the and this leadership campaign. my ideas about housing, and the regeneration of towns like this. we forget these towns. we're not serving our purpose. >> family is an important point. labour is about nothing if we're not breaking down this. it looked like we were courting the super rich. it appeared that we are intensely relaxed about that gaps in society. i never was.

[unintelligible] >> i want to make this point which is that immigration is a class issue. it affects different people in our society differently. if you see people coming in to compete for your job, you worried that it lowers your wages and conditions. if you're looking to hire a builder, that is good for you. that does to the question that i and raised. we have to be tougher and protect people's wages and conditions with the right regulations. people in my constituents raised -- were same -- [unintelligible] >> it is business which makes the case for free markets. we should make the case of their markets. -- of fair markets. you have to have proper controls and wages to start -- to stop undercutting. we can win the argument for immigration and diversity. >> let me say quite straight you

about the immigrants. my daughter is an immigrant. -- i am the daughter of an immigrant. what i say to you, it is immigrants like my mother who came here to nurse in the 1960's, have contributed so much to the public sector. but meese must do is address the real issues and never fallen the scapegoating. -- fall into scapegoating. who tomorrow? >> i cannot defend the system of benefits around europe where people could come to work, and send benefits back to children not living in this country. that fails a basic common-sense tests. >> we also, having looked at all the issues like controls and europeans coming here, we stand

up for what we believe in. nothing did more to destroy us as politicians is that we only said what was favorable to a particular audience. >> what did you hear? >> i am impressed by everyone here. i would like to say that i'm not remotely racist and i'm not entirely in less, less british then you are. we have to become united is a country and we're not at the moment. we have to be fair to all immigrants, but we have to expect them to accept our culture. to lets move on candidates question. >> dan referred to earlier.

in the last week, have challenged the media consensus that there is no alternative except to cut spending now and that we should spend more on housing and jobs to support the economic recovery. what other areas to the canada is think we need to challenge the media consensus in order to run the argument for the margin the biggest political problem is looking into an aisle at the financial system relation. we have to set forward a credible alternative. we need to pay back the deficit. more should come from taxes, because times like this, if you have cuts that we're looking at,, and a difficult argument that this should not give the nhs increases right now. i would give inflationary increases.

>> it is right to say that we should challenge the media consensus. i would challenge on this. this leadership election is a race between the two miliband brothers. we want to say to you is that there is -- it will not be the media decides the election, but the labour party. >> the most dangerous media consensus, the national minimum wage, saving on our national health service, improving schools faster than anywhere, the greatest danger for the labour party in the future britain is that we have stagnant wages when we're more confident than we were in 1997 and we have to depend that with absolute passion. if if we trash our record, no

one will believe this and our future. >> the argument about the deficit goes to a very deep question about the future of our country. i think that we should change the tax and spending balance that we had the time of the election in our plan. i think we should get more out of the bank's in order to protect public services in child benefits. we have to win the bigger argument -- it's the only thing that matters in the upcoming four years to reduce the deficit. they wanted to believe it does not matter what happens to your schools or your highways or your home service. if we had heard that in 1945, we would not have built a national health service. >> deal really think there is immediate consensus on that? >> most people are hitting --

hearing about cuts. jim webb been told that there is no alternative, cut and cut now. there is no other way. labour has the confidence in the credibility to say that this is the mistake of the 1930's and 1980's. you do not cut your way into recovery. when the private sector is not spending and investing, we should be building more housing and investing in schools. it would create jobs and get more people paying taxes. >> we have to pause in this debate. we have got another question which we're going to ask our candidates to write down the answers. no one chatted up. which long-running itv, finished for good this week? we will find out if they know the answer in just a moment. welcome back to the sky news

labour leadership debate. we're here in norwich, long- running itv drama in the this week? diane abbott is too busy to watch drama. let's move on to some quick fire questions, quick responses from the candidates to topical and other issues. the question is -- is a fresh investigation needed into the news of the world phone hacking allegations? >> yes, it is. these allegations go to the heart of david cameron is a town industry.

some said they knew about the acting that was taking place, and their multiple people saying that. >> @ balls. could yes, for the reasons ed said but the question is adjustments. you do not want to sweep it under the carpet. you should get this sorted out. then we can move on. >> yes, there should be a fresh investigation. it is inconceivable that news of the world did not new but they are doing systematically. it is a question of judgment, david cameron judgment. did any of us could of been on this list who are being hacked into. anyone in this audience could of been on the list. it is very important at a time when we're serious about taking

on the abuse of power by the state. the private organizations abusing people secretly and getting into their phone records, we need to know. >> yes, mr. cameron had been delivering lectures about restoring trust in politics. the position is fundamental to the information that the government puts out. we cannot have a situation where these questions keeps swirling around this individual. they need to be cleared up once and for all. >> thank you for a lot. another quick fire questions. would you banned the wearing of the burka? >> no, i would not. what happened in france is worrying. it was meant to inflame tensions at the heart of europe. what does that say it did the muslim community? we have a wonderful tradition of freedom of expression.

that's it applied on religious grounds. >> no, i would not. freedom of what you where it is very important in this country. i think it's an incredibly tolerant country and we should be proud of britain and i certainly do not think we should ban what people wear. no, absolutely not. the british is about being tolerant and respecting each other. and whether people are roman catholic, muslim or jewish, they have different traditions, they have to run ways of doing things. the same as the church of england as well. absolutely not. >> know. you where will they ask, you where burka, it is a simple issue. my britishnes is tolerance for people and their way of life. >> no, but we have to do more i

spoke about how we improved immigration. is not saying that people do with the light. we have to be a more united question -- united country. we have to bring people together across the line of race and religion. what you want to wear a burka or across, that is your right. >> bringing the country together, i did that i represent the most constituencies at any of you. let's remember -- a generation of immigrants that were more passionate about britain. >> we will get into that segment to reply quickly on that one. what happened at the general election people were denouncing the number of polls that came to the schedule. that shows you that race and immigration are being divorced and that is a good thing. >> people opting out and go in

their own way, that is the biggest threat to education in this country. [applause] >> of course people should be burka. where tear the >> we're going to go to our next question from the audience. this comes from mr. todd sullivan. >> the government is going for a little honeymoon. how should we time are attacks and what should they be? >> we lost the election in 1983 because we did not calotte there and debate is a country, we have internal divisive debates and we lost the argument. it is risky now if we do not out

there and make the argument. the public support for the cuts and labor has to sit back and wait for the planned head? that is nonsense. george osborne could say, it's painful but we have no choice. we will lose the argument. we have to be out there now leading the debate, not following it. saying that there is no alternative. it is a hard thing to do to chase the consensus but you do not leave if you do not win the argument. >> it is all about timeliness and doing it with responsibility. they did not want to see the labour party attacking everything. we have to understand and respect that. but we to attack them when they do something that will fundamentally damage this country in the long term. the white paper they have brought forth on the national health service needs to be fought every inch of the way. and they have combined -- they

have committed a strategic error to combine the biggest ever financial challenge with a net -- unnecessary reorganization. we should buy a memorable battle against it. >> it is essential question for us. i will not oppose everything. i think they're right to drop by these cards. but i would go after them on their attack on many of the things we value in our society. this is not a majority tory government. liberal democrats have a choice. the most important for our party is our next may's election where we defeat the coalition can it. many liberal democrats are following that clyde off a cliff. >> we have to make sure that we respect lib dem voters, but baiting them is not enough.

we have to beat the conservative party. we have to have an alternative. you can never win a general election just by being at the opposition. we need a cheerless opposition, exposing more they go wrong, but we need a labour party that can earn people's trust by having a credible alternative on jobs, on health, on crime and at the social behavior. those of the big issues where we have to be back on the pitch as the party of government. >> did the government cuts are not inevitable. you should have seen tory mp' s faces when george osborn did his budget. they want to see it cut back for all time. we need to place herself where ordinary british people are. they do not want the big cats that tories are proposing. they want to see a big program

of public-sector housing. they've fought to see more jobs security. as these cuts rollout, people will see how bad they are. >> we should be very careful by falling for some idea that the coalition is a new politics. the hardest hit is families on the lowest income. that is not new policies. that is conservative on fairness being propped up to buy some parts of the liberal democratic party. we should expose it for what it is. >> to people believe that they are necessary given the state that you view government services? >> let's set out a credible alternative on the economy, and lots of people in the media

said, you cannot win that argument. one columnist came out and said, i am right and it will put us back into recession. >> ed is right about that. we need to change and win back the voters that we lost. the voters have voted liberal democrat, there were a whole range of issues, tuition fees, of farm policy -- we have to go on a journey. with the to show that we take seriously cutting the deficit but we have a different vision of society and we showed that we increased our lives. >> you set something up want to take you up on. >> the question is. to people they that they are

necessary? >> i am saying that these cuts in great measure to not. to responsibility but irresponsibility. >> the a lot of calls from not labor side of the hall. i wonder if anyone wants to come and from our audience on this question. with the microphone. , you haveke to ask used the word change a lot. change what for what? my name is penny. >> the change that we need is to recognize where we are wrong and where we were wrong as a government. there millions of people on

minimum wage. that is why i say i'm for a living wage. tuition fees have become a problem in this country. i think it's going to be hard for people to get to university because of the fear of debt. we need to look at our record and be willing to defend it and move on and change things where we gather wrong. >> we have to move on from this. >> the idea that you have put forward for our future in this race, which would you say would best define your leadership? >> one idea. >> the importance of a council house building. it meant that you're listening to our people, listing to work councils, a real social need.

people say that people are coming from outside and making cuts. it was our biggest failure, council housing. >> david miliband. >> i intended by a policy of rigid and answered to double lebanon -- the biggest thing that done is they will train up thousand community leaders around the country, including here, the fight against the plan to switch off the street lights. trained at thousand community leaders to be a living, breathing demonstration of how the labour party can be the allied of people of conscious and goodwill. that is out when that trust. >> i think this issue of tuition fees does get to the heart of who we are. some people say that we should just increase them. a kid in my constituency, he

will be told, you can pay 80,000 pounds into a top university, or 20,000 pounds to go somewhere else. we know how divided our country is. let's replace tuition fees with a fairer system, a graduate tax, that will allow us to pay more for your education. >> on tuesday, i set out a detailed plan to spend 6 billion pounds this unit to build 100,000 more affordable homes to create three-quarters of a million jobs, at a time when the travel sector is setting consumption jobs, because the private sector is not building the houses and investing for the future. it is hard to say that because he knew people wonder if it can be afforded it. i do not think we can afford not

to do it. we could have a longer recession. >> which one of those appeals to you? >> they've all got merit. there are some inspiring ideas. with that to be on the side of aspiration and helping people go online. -- on with life. those taxes stand in the way of young people with the least getting on in my. labour must be on the side of the aspirations. it defies by policies of absolutions. the aspirations. -- first of all, we're going to have a our written question, our third written question. that question is, do not sat out the answer, what date is st. george's day?

ok, stay with us. we will find out in just a moment. welcome back. this is the labour leadership debate. we are asking the candidates, what date is a george's day? the answer is the 23rd of april, also shakespeares birthday. ed miliband, and berman, diane abbott said that descent. -- that it is sen. at balls and david miliband and got that it was the 23rd of april. let's move on to our next question. >> the idea of a graduate tax. it seems to be unfair. graduates will be moving overseas debt ovoid paying the

taxes. >> is that a bad idea? >> alice one of the canada so opposed tuition fees of the time. the question is, what you do if you do not do that? it is problematic for the reason that you've said. the money does not go directly back to the universities. alan the rule of paying for hijack -- higher education. it does have its problems. >> let's move on to add balls. -- ed miliband -- ed balls. >> unfortunately we lost that argument seven years ago. theink if you're expanding

number of university presses, it is fair to say that people will get the benefit, but if you say to a family. no one has gone to university before, they did not want their children starting out in debt. it did get a job afterward, they make a contribution. that is a much better way to do it. >> there's a real problem in the current system people have a specific figure attached to them. that will begin to put them off: the university. i remember graduating in the early 1990's, and they should both paid the same. what we have to do is talk more about young people that have a realistic hope that they would get into a career beyond university. we need to and the insidious

culture of unpaid work. it is very hard for young people make their way in the world today. it can be much easier for those who deny well-connected parents. to get on in life after university. >> i and the standee anxiety you express about graduate tax. i do not agree with diane about single taxation. when i think about educating, the early years are the things that really matter. you come to that conclusion, it that the tories. if you stick to the current system, it means higher debt. or do you have the courage to change? that is what a graduate tax is a fairer system. the more you earn the but the more you pay back. at think they would understand.

>> the taxes on graduates are the right way forward. you have to look at the details, not just the slogans. we don't have up-front fees now. they have been abolished. they are only paid back once you are earning $15 and pounds of gear as a graduate. we have to make sure there is not a barrier on the basis of ability to pay. it is a good thing there has been a 20% increase in the number of kids from poor families going into higher education. we should always look at how to make the system more fair. >> so what is the answer? >> we have the brown review going on at the moment. there are numbers in the number of ways to make the system fairer. you end up with people with two- year degrees subsidizing someone with a four-year degree. that is the principle of fairness that was raised earlier in the question. >> the problem is, the fact that universities are saying they do

not have enough money. higher tuition means a market in higher education. >> no one is arguing for higher tuition fees. what the brown review is looking at is different ways for people on different and higher incomes to pay a fair contribution towards the cost. i think we should look carefully at the details. >> while this is a very important debate, it is about time that the labor party stop talking more about the fit to present signed of young people who are not going to go to university. [applause] we need to be talking about their life chances in their career progression. it is about time we addressed this and started talking about those young people a bit more. [applause] >> andy is quite right.

wheat tried to drive for the number of printed ships. -- apprenticeships. the labor party also has to hear what people are saying. the reality is, too many people said in the election campaign, why are you making it harder for our students to coach the university? your out of touch. >> in the interest of fairness, the final question. >> you are all relatively young men. you have all had tremendous careers over 30 years at the heart of the new labor project. people of good will can differ

about policy. what actions of labor do you most regret, and why did not say anything at the time? >> david miliband. >> is too much about 1 n against each other -- one man against each other. our policy is about redistributing power in our country so that people have control over their own lives. we have to practice what we preach about standing together, but also making sure we did when tony interfered with the selection of 10 livingston in london and when he interfered in wales, it was part of the culture. i believe in a bottom up policy. >> the thing ammo's regret is that new labor became like old labor -- the thing i must regret. it became stuck in the past. if you think about the banking crisis, low pay, civil liberties, we clung to old

foreign-policy, and the relationship with america. that is why it this must be a change election for labor. unless we change and move on from those old ideas, we will not bring back power. >> it is not enough to talk about change in value. we have to set out policy. new labor did that in 1997 but we lost our way in the second term. we got in an argument that said private good, public bad. we gave the impression that public-sector work is a problem. tony blair was furious with me. i was willing to speak on some of these issues. --the end >> coming straight from

university to a career in politics, it gave me a different perspective. new labour was formed out of a distrust in its own roots. we had to develop a top down controlling style, which never appealed to me. going forward, we need to change that. we need to break this political elite is and that has had a grip on labor for 16 years. andet's trust our members partners. >> diane abbott. >> are represent one of the poorest constituencies in the country. at the end of 13 years, people

are incredibly cynical. it was things like the top down approach and the iraq war that led to a corrosive dissolution. people cannot even see what we actually done with our investments. >> i think you very much indeed. we are drawing to a close. we will have to questions going into this break. a question for you to write down the answer. how much does it cost to buy a single euro millions lottery ticket? what is the first line of the second verse of the red flag? not the chorus, but the first line of the second verse of the red flag. >> welcome back to the leadership debate. we have been asking our candidate some general knowledge questions.

the cost of the ticket is 2 pounds. anyone want to have a go at the second verse of the red flag? >> [unintelligible] good.t's very there you are. [laughter] none of them got that, but i can give you the final scores out of five. diane abbott has a perfect round, 0 out of 5, david miliband, three out of five.

andy burnham bought the lottery question. congratulations. moving on to some quick fire questions. this is a topical question, giving the front page of the sunday telegraph. this is the former military chief saying blair and brown have betrayed our troops in iraq and afghanistan. did they, david miliband? >> it really pains me, because there are people in our country who have lost sons and daughters in afghanistan and iraq, and that is toward enough for anyone to live with. but to then be told it could all have been easier are better if it had not been for some bureaucrats or politicians, is just not true. we have armed forces fighting in some of the most dangerous parts of the world with the best equipment they have ever had. richard went to afghanistan and complain that he was all-around by an american helicopter. it is good that there are 43

countries there in a coalition. it is good that we are not having to provide everything. it is very important that people send a very strong message that we are committing our troops in the most dangerous of circumstances. they are getting incredible support from the country but also from their own -- let's have a debate about the right judgments, but to start planning on individual acts is completely wrong. >> this is a misplaced criticism. i saw tony blair and coast region close quarters when he was taking some of the most difficult decisions. they agonized about the decisions they were taking, always questioning what they were doing. i think it is not fair to make this criticism. both men knew their obligations to the young people they have sent to the front lines in

afghanistan and iraq. >> it is dreadful language he is using. whatever mistakes were made, tony blair agonize very hard about the decisions that he took. in afghanistan, we have troops serving there and doing a heroic job. our job as a party and a future government is to always make sure that the mission is being carried out properly. this language is reprehensible. >> he hat and said that gordon brown had a maligned attitude. >> defense spending went up by over 10%, and in the teen years before 1997 it went down by 30%. the equipment was there. i think he move in an unseemly way from being a military leader. playing politics is a mistake.

[applause] >> i think he discredited himself. everyone knows i am the only candidate against the iraq war. no western occupying army has won a war in afghanistan into centuries. americans would still be in vietnam if we thought like that. we need to put our considerable skills into supporting them with nation-building and development. we have to bring our troops home. >> thank you very much indeed. it is time for the closing statements from the five candidates, each of whom wants to lead the labour party. starting with andy burnham. >> labor has been in the grip of a political elite. i came into this to break.

as we go into the final stages of this race, i am fighting with everything i've got. i am fighting for different kind of labour party, one that stresses its members, that values its counselors and works constructively with its trade union partners. i want your support to rebuild labaour from the bottom up as the people's party. [applause] >> on the big issues like iraq, which did so much to destroy trust in politics, i was right at the time, and my rivals were wrong. i am only -- the only candidate who has spent 18 years as a single mother. i have a little more experience in the real world.

in the 21st century, this may be what labour looks like. [applause] >> our challenge is not to revive old battles, but to have new ideas. i don't just know what i am against, i know what i am 4. redistribution of power in britain and a different kind of labour party. that is why i am the unity candidate in this election. i think i can be david cameron. with your support, we can win. [applause] >> there has been a lot of debate in this election. i am the candidate who set out a radical plan on jobs and housing.

someone said to me, should we have someone who is more appealing? if we choose on that basis, we will lose the next election. we need someone who will stand up to david cameron. [applause] >> we have to change -- have to have the courage to change and move on to new labor. we can write down all the barriers and aspirations including some that we have put their like tuition fees. i am the candidate who can best turn the page for labor. i am not a candidate for the new labor and establishment. i am the candidate who can change later, when back trust and win back power for a war party. >> thank you very much indeed. [applause] thank you to all of our candidates. the election is open, and in 20

days, there will be the announcement of the new labour leader. thanks to [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> prime minister's questions returns this week. david cameron fields questions from the house of commons. you can see it all live wednesday morning beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. next, former pennsylvania senator rick santorum. then a look at the house and senate campaigns in the 2010

election. after that, a conversation with david westin of abc news. president obama travels to milwaukee tomorrow to talk about the u.s. economy at the annual laborfest. former pennsylvania's senator rick santorum was recently and i was speaking at a fund-raising breakfast for the state treasurer. he talked about some differences between the two major political parties and answered questions from the audience. this is about 40 minutes.

>> is the chairman of america's foundation, a political action committee dedicated to helping candidates who share his conservative principles. he was a united states representative and then a senator from the great state of pennsylvania. in reading about his accomplishments, it is crystal clear that this man has been fighting for individual freedom and fiscal sanity's. he is led the battle against government entitlement and work to reform the social security administration. i wish he had been more successful on that. the main thing i like about this man is that he is first and foremost a family man. he puts his family first. he and his wife for the parents of seven children.

i think that family is one of the reason that this man is one of our great leaders of today. please help me welcome senator rick santorum. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i am glad you ignore a lot of that stuff when you come up with google searches. in the last three days, every day i have done an event in iowa, the challengers. the first tape was format schulz -- matt schultz. the one thing i can tell you that i am most impressed with is that these are folks running for offices that those people do not know much about what they do. they do not know much about who

these people are in there right now. they see them as the functionaries in government. all of these candidates are bright, dynamic, energetic, and have a great messages. we have executive offices in pennsylvania. i have seen those candidates' campaign many times. i have never seen candidates who are laser-beam focused, just encouraging me so much that you have candidates who are on a mission, who want to do this job, not because it is something to run for to run for something else, which happens in politics a lot. these folks want to do the job. he has been a treasurer and understands the job and wants to do it. he has a very clear agenda as to what he would do differently and why he is the better candidate to do this job in this critical time in this state's history and

the country's history. the same thing can be said for matt shultz, the secretary of state who deals with the elections. id to doan everything but vote? and we care about the integrity of our election system. we have a attorney general, who when a lot of the state, a controversy 01 that challenged in court, the lawyer for you decided he did not want to defend the case. or when they say they're going to force you to buy another insurance product based on what the government tells you do buy, the zero, health care bill. europe tony general says i am not going to defend your

constitutional rights. what good is a lot here is not -- when he is not going to be with you when you need him? and you. dave talking about the irresponsibility of someone who did not do his basic job. the fiduciary responsibility for the people of iowa, this $500 million. in another fiduciary responsibility, $800 million, leading to $1.2 billion when interest is paid back, robbing peter to pay paul. peter is your children. for some government orchestrated stimulus package. this is not responsible government. you've got candidates here in iowa -- " why would someone from pennsylvania, and campaign in iowa for three candidates running for executive offices? let me tell you about the 2009 election. everyone in 2009 with lookit the big change after a bomb.

people looked at the governors in virginia, the governor's race in new jersey. chris christie won in new jersey, and bob macdonald one in virginia. we won an open seat held by democrat, the national chairman of the democratic party. and that was the big election. those were not the two big elections. you want to talk to the folks who watch political movements in this country, you call michael barone and others, the biggest election -- anybody know? pennsylvania. anybody know what happened in pennsylvania into a dozen 9? it was the most important election. you go back and read the comments from some of these

guys, they will talk about it. they will talk about it because it was the most important election, what happened in pennsylvania in 2009? we had seven or eight judicial races. we elect our judges, not a bad idea. particularly what given on -- what went on here in iowa. why the executive offices, these are not very expensive campaign. it's been $200,000, and name recognition is everything. people do not know the position that these people hold. in a sense, in many respects like this race, their party races. they are how people feel about the democratic party and the republican party, and they're much more reflective of the generic mood of this country. what happened in pennsylvania 2009? 1.2 million more registered

democrats -- we won every race. white allies say that? people will look as you probably know -- people live to iowa particularly in this election cycle. starting in january and february and before that, folks are coming to iowa. c-span starts coming to iowa. what is going on in iowa? what are people thinking, politicians coming to the state, and as a result of your last election, you have an influence on what they're talking about and how they'd feel about the country and the direction of the country. so what you do when you're a legend, not just the topic. they're great folks. when they when they will be a great victory in now will have an influence on things. in a high-profile election,

everyone knows them and the governor. just like the new jersey race, because people did not like jon corzine and the democrat said, that was just a bad candidate. the governor was not very strong. it had nothing to do with the republican and democrat. the cannot say that when this candidate wins. then what you have is a way. what you have is a match is being sent, not just of the folks here in iowa but people all across this country. i think you need to be reminded how important this state is, particularly right now, leading into the 2012 legend. you ever responsibility. why is it a big deal? you all know one of the reason that you're here, not just to help david, but you know that this is a big election. what is going on in this country right now is big. it is bigger than i think

anybody ever thought was possible. the biggest change that we have seen in this country, this big alert to the left, this big expansion of government and that that threatens the very future of our country. every event that i go do, it is the biggest rally that anyone has ever had in an have been. it is you. it is actually washington that is driving people out in droves, because they're concerned about the future of our country. and they have every right to be. what is happening in washington is not just another expansion of government or another broker. we've almost become numb to that. the government continues to inexorably grow and grow and take more and more of our freedom and more more of our money, putting us more into debt and behind the eightball. what happened in the last 18

months wasn't as froebel growth of government got -- i did go give people the wrong impression. a shot of adrenaline. that shot of adrenaline has just exploded the debt. it's not just a little bit more but fundamental change in who we are as americans. i think that is what people are upset about. they see a president who does not see america -- well, like you see america. or like my father and my grandfather who came to this country, came to this country for what america promise. my father and grandfather came here because of what the opportunities that america presented. the opportunity that was something unique in the world. we were the first country in the history of the world to say, the people did not serve the government or in most places the

sovereign, the king, the emperor. but in fact the government was there to protect the rights of the people. the people were the ones or the object of the government, not the sovereign. god had given the people inalienable rights that the government was to protect, not that guy had blessed the sovereign but the right that he or she was at the -- could tell that out to who they chose. [applause] guilt free to interrupt any time with applause. we accept that as something -- that that is the way is this. but that is not always the way it was. in a modern-day world, that is not the way it is in most places around the world for in most places around the world, the government is the one the bestows the rights on the people. the leader, the authoritarian gives the rights to the people,

they're not seen is valued because god has given them rights. that is not the way that communists and socialists looked at people. they say that they care about people. the old line about socialist -- they care about people in groups of a million or more. [laughter] the care about you in class citizen groups and ethnic groups and race groups, that is how they look at the war. they do not let it you. our founders did for the first time in the history of the world, they believed in you as an individual. if we liberated you, created the world where three people could rise and reached for the stars and reap the benefits of their labor, that the world would change. and guess what happened? it did. i'll always remind people that more than 200 years ago, life expectancy was about 40 years of

age. what had been for the past dozen years? you could take a few years, not to match change. the dark ages and renaissance, but if you look at the average person, the average person, why did not change much for them. in hundreds and hundreds of years until this unique idea, if we liberated people and believe in you, allowed you to succeed greatly, did not punish you for succeeding greatly, did not take the fruits of your labor and give it to the government for them to redistribute to this servants. but a lead you to succeed greatly, and just as importantly, allowed you to fail greatly. with that, the world would

change, and life expectancy doubled to what it was more than 200 years ago. by all rights from the standpoint of health and consumption, it's much better person than the richest person when america was founded. what was said it? we have a president who does not believe that anymore. that is what america's all about. they believe that this presidency is america differently. he sees america's evil. greedy, corrupt, unfair, and that we need a group of people in washington d.c. to make it fair. to punish you people who've for your own desire want to accumulate wealth, take that walk away, and give it to people who are more deserving. more deserving because they vote for me. that is this different view.

that is a man and of party who runs around the world apologizing for america and said of saying how exceptional we are. one of the most important comments that barack obama bid as president, do you believe in american exceptional listen? do you believe that the system might just have you, that change the face of the world, isn't something we should continue to believe then and markets around the world? and he said, i believe an smerican exceptional isi like the british believe in british exceptionalism. if everyone is exceptional, no one is exceptional. he does not believe in us. he does not believe in america. that is what has everyone out in droves. we want to hold on to this system of government created --

-- which created the greatest nation in the history of the world. [applause] so i want to thank you for being out here today. we are in the same vote -- boat. we want to take time for his questions and my answers. i just want to thank you for being here. i want to thank you for stepping up. one of the things i say all the time is that i feel very blessed to be here at a time when america needs us. think about it. lots of folks get up every day and for generations and generations can get up, go to work, take care of the kids, and of the business, do your job, and if you just did that, america would probably be ok. but there's some generations better called to do more. i happen to believe this is one of those turning points in american history, that your

children and grandchildren will look back on you and say what did you do? when america was at a turning point, was at a crossroads, what did you do? did you step up and contribute to candidates that would make a difference not just for you tonight, but would send a message to the nation? have you worked hard for your senators, your congressman, across the country -- this is a national race. you're not just a citizen of iowa, but a citizen of this country and there are races around the world to reach out, because these elections are that important. their contribution limits in iowa? >> no. >> you are blessed here in iowa. you have total freedom. washington restrict your freedom when it comes to helping federal candidates but you have no such restriction here in the free

stretta by what to give the fruits of your labor. there's a final comment that our founders established this freedom and understood that the greatest threat to freedom was one word -- time. people over time, we just did use that thing and take things for granted and that freedom wears away, gradually, slowly, inexorably. and it takes people to recognize when that freedom is slipping away to stand up and say, no, not on my watch. you have an opportunity now on your watch to reclaim freedom for america and do something great. i hope you take the opportunity to do it. [applause] >> i want to thank mary again, thank you very much.

and we at that time -- to you have done? any questions for senator santorum or myself? [inaudible] >> the purchase of the teddy bear? >> he is asking about the teddy bear. ymbol,that as a simpl because the crooks from a management company took the money that was supposed to be invested and the level of high last up. some of the things that they bought was a horse ranch, luxury-car, and then they were into collectible toys. so they bought collectible teddy bears. one teddy bear cost over

$80,000. i saw one documents saying $100,000. a single teddy bear, iowa state money, buying collectible toys and that is just an example. i'm not trying to be funny with it other than to create an impression to remember. this is where your money went. it is important that people have something to remember. i bet if you googled iowa history, you might not come up with more than five under million dollars. it dwarfs other scandals. people went to jail, federal prosecutors got involved over $1.3 million. that's the teddy bear. [inaudible]

there has been very little coverage in the media. the comments i have read, mostly in response to my talking to reporters, is from mike fitzgerald that this is not the bottom line. is less than 2% of the fund. we're going to recovery. it is a moving target. be a party recovered 70% in an earlier article. recently we're going to cover 80%-9%, and the number he often uses is $300 million. and the media often uses $300 million, because they believe the two trucks when they say they invested in the market and there was $180 million mark loss. believing them about what they invested in is as ny -- is otherwise. i've seen no documentation that supports that the invested in the of the five under million dollars. all the money that has been

recovered as $29 million. with interest, that is the real loss to iowa. [inaudible] >> net was 30 years ago, yes, he did. >> people have to go off to work. i am going to the fair. a should have said that in the beginning. usually run around and do campaign events in shorts. i'm looking for did that on my first trip. >> the treasurer says we balance our budget. would you say when our city officials say that we balance the budget? how you respond to that question margin the key question asked when they talk about balancing

the $5.3 billion, he knows this better than i do, but that will say things like they have passed the $5.3 billion budget. the key question is, are you saying that is all that you stand? the fact is, they spent $6.2 billion. how was that balance? they used a lot of one-time money and that leaves the state auditor's number at of billion dollars left for the next session. there's one have to recall and replace the one-time money, and there will be a billion dollar gap. i think this is important that you get this. 2009 or 2010, that budget year, the legislature spent $1.14 for

every dollar of revenue. that is unsustainable. >> question for the senator. when the republicans win in the control, we showed that we could spend money pretty well on our own. the democrats had to do much more to show they were big spenders. it seems that both parties have a tradition of spending a lot of money. where do we spend the money? how we get back on track and is something? >> that is one of the reasons you see so many battles within the republican party in the primaries this time around. you're right, we were in control, there were a lot of programs that we had, a lot of the appropriation dollars that we spent, out of sync with what

we said we believed then in government. in large part it is because who resent the washington, d.c. but some of the things that pass this year with republican support by financial services regulations bill, a substantial number of republicans won along with democrats. the same thing could be said with the spending. we compromised in large part because the united states senate, and the high water report -- the high water mark was 55 votes to pass any kind of spending bill or any kind of change in laws, you needed 60 votes. you need a handful of democrats to go along and we have a handful of republicans who are not particularly conservative. that combination led to the slow growth of government. it's different in its kind and what we're seeing now. but it was a problem.

the problem is we need to let more conservatives in republican primaries will go down to washington d.c. and stand up for limited government. number two, we need to let more of them. i will point out that the biggest -- that three biggest times of growth in america were during, growth in government, where there was a shift between people and the government, it occurred in the new deal, the great society, and this last session of congress. all was the commonality in all three of those times? the only time in the last 200 years is reelected and that is a senator's, the only three times this happened. what was the commonality? not just one party controlled. in every case we have a liberal president, that is one.

democratic control, but one more specific thing. the only time or there was a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. the liberals had a filibuster- proof majority in the senate and they were able to pass bills that moved in the democrats' direction, hard left. how many times have republicans had a filibuster-proof majority in the senate? never. what i did you guys go down there and make big changes? you need 60 votes, folks. that is why want to caution everyone. i think we will have a big election. i think there's a good chance to pick up the house of representatives and a good chance to pick up the senate. barack obama will be president for two more years.

we will not have 60 votes in the senate. what we will do in this election is stop barack obama from doing more harm to america. we will not change anything or very little because he will not let us and we will not have the majority did do it even if he did. the big election of 2010, we need to get big wins. get that upper -- number of around 50 or no. the 50 in the senate. you want changes and right-sized government, bring it back to the constitutional principles that people believe been and are awakening to again? you need to give a 60 votes in the senate. if that does not have a, you do not care who the president is. they will have a hard time repealing obama care, repealing programs that exploded this government, because you cannot pass anything without 60 votes in the united states senate. i remind you that this is how

the system is richard -- this is of the senate is structured in our country. they got the keys and they changed america. you want republicans and conservatives and people who believe in the principles i just talked about, man you cannot send us a democratic senator from iowa. you need to send this two is republican senator from iowa. your other senator tom harkin is never going to vote for any of the things that i just talked about. it is up to you, the people across america, the release say that they believe this, got to do it. you have got to do it on election day. particularly at its november, but big concern is that everyone is going to say, we dodge the bullet. no, we've not.

obamacare is the law. this country will be forever changed because the government will be able to say to you, yes, i left to give you health care but you have to give us more money. the will of the pipeline to your wallet because they will control your life. they will be of a ration care to those who they believe is best. that is held every european country became a european social welfare state, and why the the there was a singularly focused on it? they know that that is the key. once they have that, they had you and america as this beacon of hope and freedom and opportunity in the wall, they change the dynamic and the world will be no more.

>> obama likes to still blame bush for everything that has happened. maybe you could clarify this, when bush tried to make changes a few years ago, the ones that really led what bush was trying to do -- >> is complex but in some respects it is very simple what happened. what happened was george bush and republicans in the house and the senate recognized the was going on with fannie and freddie was a big problem, their portfolios were getting used to, they were much more a trickle and we were concerned about the stability of the marketplace, given the overreliance on these entities, and we put forth an overall package, but i served on

the senate banking committee and i voted for a package of reforms over the objections of chris dodd and the democrats, of party-line vote. we put together package that address this issue, they put limits on what fannie and freddie could do, try to make sure that if we over expose ourselves in this mortgage -- some prime mortgages, and we pass that in the senate, that passed the bill in the house, the present was ready to sign, the democrats filibustered it. every single one of them, including barack obama. and now they say as wall street's fall. certainly wall street has some blame. they responded to the game the the government's set. the government put the pieces into place and they simply took advantage and exceeded the it manager on what the government

-- i don't think he understood the bill. he was very much for it. but we could not even get a vote. the big mistake we made in my opinion, and i push this with my leadership, but i did not win. that happened a lot, unfortunately. from my perspective. i push to bring the bill up and actually make them vote to kill it. but there was always a move, well, we're still talking to them and work something out. dodd cap stringing us along until we would work something out but we never did it whenever had a vote. they can say that they never voted against it. >> when there be statements in the congressional record that would document what these men said?

>> says whenever had a debate on the floor of the senate, there may have been times that we talked about it, and maybe god did talk about it on the floor, a half a look. but most democrats stayed away from it. democrats love fannie and freddie because is their model on how they would run every aspect of our economy. it was a government-run agency did wouldn't control every sector of the economy. that is what they believe in. you -- that is what they believe. they do not believe that three people left along is a dead end. in need have someone on top telling you not to be greedy and read distributor well. barack obama was at arizona state -- read that address. he basically condemned capitalism.

you put your efforts for something good, not business, but helpful for society. business owners create wealth and opportunity for other people, and your misapplying a talent. this is the attitude that has motivated americans to come out in droves. i hope they keep up the intensity after that. one more question. thank you all very much. >> there was a pause when we ask for questions. everyone had their checkbooks out what we said there was no limit, that is what was going on. thank you for your support. we need to be done but there is coffee and food, please stick

around. their signs around, a bumper stickers, thank you for coming. >> let's get a picture of you. >> next, all look at the house and senate campaigns in the 2010 election. after that, a conversation with david westin and of abc news. in the afl-cio and u.s. chamber of commerce reports on the united states and business. congress returns from break next week. here's a look at some of our prime time programming right after president obama speech monday. watch town hall meetings with tom coburn and bernie sanders.

they both talked about health care. >> i believe the plan is for this plan to fail. as a matter fact, i know this plan will fail. health insurance will be way too high. you will create adverse elections. anyone young that is healthy, you will pay the fine and 2014 rather than spend $9,000 on health insurance. it is smart. if you get sick, they have to pay for you. what is going happen? the help the young people are not going to be in the insurance pool. what will happen to the people over 40 who are sick? what will happen to the cost of their insurance? that is why i think they have decided to fail. all to lead that was like to revert back to -- we need a government-run, government- mandated, government-controlled

single payer health-care system. >> we are serious about having a cost effective high-quality health care system with guaranteed health care, the way to go is a medicare for all single payer system. if vermont leads the country, you're absolutely right that we're going to be deluged with lobbyists and big money because in the small state of vermont, 630,000 people, if we can show that of medicare for all single payer system works, then there's new hampshire and california and the rest of the country comes. >> we will show you both of these town halls in their entirety after our rea error of the president's speech on monday night here on c-span. now a discussion on the house and senate races in the 2010 elections. from today's "washington journal," this is about 45

minutes. isenstadt is the national reporter for politico. labor day is the official kickoff. what should viewers expect? guest: what you will see beginning tuesday, you will see a barage of money coming in from interest gups in a last- ditch campaign in the final weeks of the race. therwill be millions of dollars spent on the air and a last effort to define thes races. host: where will that money be coming from, individual candidates or the outside groups like the democratic national committee or the republican national committee or the third party groups? one caller referred to the coke brothers and what they arspending for their third party 527 group.

then you have karl rove at american crossroads. guest: we're looking at how republican outside groups have into theseneled money races. the republican national committee is that a cash deficit compared to their democratic rivals. republican candidates are relying on these conservative outsidgroups to funnel millions of dollars. host: can they make up the difference? democrats have a cash advantage going into november. guest: democrats will at least have an cash advantage, and the fact that they on the white house. these conservative groups can help close the difference. host: what is it looking like for the democrats in the house, republicans in the house? guest: for democrats, it could

not be that much worse. it is about managing your losses. democrats will have to decide where they want to cut the losses, which members they want to invest in, which members are laws, which members can still be saved. for house republicans, it is about upping theirame, decidi where they want to invest theirunds to boost the number is as much as they can. host: that is the headline on the front page of "the new york times" this morning. democrats plan a political triage to retain the house. what are some of the races that democrats will have to say, we will not spend any money on your race? gu guest: democrats and very conservative district. democrats that barely one --